Fascist Economics - What's Wrong With Them?

So, before you accuse me of wanting a world war and to put everyone who looks different than me in a prison camp, hear me out. What is wrong with a government with an economic system that involves pumping massive amounts of money and work into infrastructure and technology. Trying to improve the domestic manufacturing base by expanding the consumerism on the state’s part would also be effective, as suppliers arise to meet the demand.

Now, I realize that this may not be too popular because of the name and how these political ideas have been implemented by some pretty horrible groups in the past, but they’ve also been effective. But why do we need to look at good ideas by bad people as something evil that we must fight at all costs?

There comes a point when that government no longer has any money to pump into the economy without borrowing from other countries or taking all of the peoples money back to pay back what they have borrowed. Of course they pay back more than they borrowed in interest. It is a lose, lose situation.

You will find this is exactly what the liberal ideals are. They are more than willing to take other peoples money to give to the poor until they run out of other peoples money.

There comes a point when that government no longer has any money to pump into the economy without borrowing from other countries or taking all of the peoples money back to pay back what they have borrowed. Of course they pay back more than they borrowed in interest. It is a lose, lose situation.

You will find this is exactly what the liberal ideals are. They are more than willing to take other peoples money to give to the poor until they run out of other peoples money.

The trick is so safe money while economic times are good (as failed by Bush) and then spend them in times of crises to help the econemy restore quicker.

There comes a point when that government no longer has any money to pump into the economy without borrowing from other countries or taking all of the peoples money back to pay back what they have borrowed. Of course they pay back more than they borrowed in interest. It is a lose, lose situation.

You will find this is exactly what the liberal ideals are. They are more than willing to take other peoples money to give to the poor until they run out of other peoples money.

The trick is so safe money while economic times are good (as failed by Bush) and then spend them in times of crises to help the econemy restore quicker.

This is interventionist rhetoric. government spending in times of crises almost always makes things worse, just look at the great depression.

It depends on how you want it packaged really. Here’s a youtube video that is really just some guy reading the transcription of a famous speech given on the depression some years ago.

I offer this youtube video as a convenience to you. The vocabulary is easy to understand and you don’t really need a background in economics to be able to follow. If you think that youtube is not a good source of information, I’d perfectly understand and will instead link you to one of the many papers out there on it.

1. The Great depression was not a failing of a free market, Hoover passed some of the most aggressive tariff policies in the history of the united states, among other things.

2. FDR did not swoop in and save anyone, the New Deal was largely re-packaged policies from the Hoover administration.

3. Most “jobs” created by government programs were useless. People might as well have been digging holes and filling them up. Employment is not a measure of how good the economy is. Production and disposable income were both way down

Something a little funny to note, FDR actually ran an aggressive campaign against Hoover by demonizing Hoover’s spending and policy. People who say Hoover was a Laissez-faire president are objectively wrong.

Something a little funny to note, FDR actually ran an aggressive campaign against Hoover by demonizing Hoover’s spending and policy. People who say Hoover was a Laissez-faire president are objectively wrong.

Just to add on to what Tricky has already said, massive government spending in a recession often makes a shallower, prolonged recession. So, instead of a market fueled recovery that would be a sharp V (sharp recession followed by a more robust recovery), the government fueled recovery is often a flattened U (growth takes a long time to kick in, and when it does, it’s fairly unremarkable).

Generally large recessions are followed by massive economic growth. Obama has pursued the liberal, spend lots of money, Keynesian approach. Our GDP growth has largely been 2-3% per quarter. That, in layman’s terms, is fine during normal economic conditions. When it’s during a recovery, it’s pathetic.
_______EDIT:

@ thijser:

Your graph is really deceptive – spending as a percentage of GDP is a far, far more accurate measure:

Hoover was President from 29-33. As you can see, there is a massive jump in spending right around 1930.

It’s fair to say that I can totally handwave your graph given WWII and the fact that a “Total Spending” is damn near irrelevant given the MASSIVE Inflation felt by the US under FDR. A “Spending as a percentage of GDP” would probably be a little more accurate.

My point still stands. Have you read any of FDR’s writings? Actually read what FDR wrote and said during his first campaign. He was running on a smaller government platform, he said it himself.

It’s fair to say that I can totally handwave your graph given WWII and the fact that a “Total Spending” is damn near irrelevant given the MASSIVE Inflation felt by the US under FDR. A “Spending as a percentage of GDP” would probably be a little more accurate.

My point still stands. Have you read any of FDR’s writings? Actually read what FDR wrote and said during his first campaign. He was running on a smaller government platform, he said it himself.

Well let’s look at issendorf’s graph I think it’s pretty clear that spending increased and only then the great depression actually ended.

And care to give some of your own data it’s easy to hand wave another persons sources without giving any of your own?

Well let’s look at issendorf’s graph I think it’s pretty clear that spending increased and only then the great depression actually ended.

The spending increase was because of WWII – not because of FDR’s ‘brilliant’ domestic economic policies. Additionally, the reason the US economy exploded post WWII is we were essentially the only modern economy left once the war ended as Japan and Western Europe were crippled. You could say FDR got lucky that there was WWII as it helped mask his abominable policies at home.

You obviously didn’t watch that video or you wouldn’t be saying things like this or you’d at least be refuting in spite of them rather than assuming your points are correct.

If you’re not going to use the resources I give to you, there’s really not a lot I can do. I’m not going to waste my time explaining to you why Keynesian Economic policy is bunk when there are literally thousands of books that have already done so.

Well you send me an hour and a half long video with a great “look for yourself” if you give me the exact point at which your points are stated I will look at them (but it already gave a hair raising great myths gray background intro typical of untrustworthy sources). But perhaps you could tell me why spending would be wrong? If you make sure the economy is at least largely recovered before you begin to tax back your previous losses? And don’t you think that as the great depression only ended towards WW2?

I mean that is clearly a match between government spending and a decrease in unemployment.

Well you send me an hour and a half long video with a great “look for yourself” if you give me the exact point at which your points are stated I will look at them (but it already gave a hair raising great myths gray background intro typical of untrustworthy sources). But perhaps you could tell me why spending would be wrong? If you make sure the economy is at least largely recovered before you begin to tax back your previous losses? And don’t you think that as the great depression only ended towards WW2?

I mean that is clearly a match between government spending and a decrease in unemployment.

In case you didnt know, spending increased during the 40’s because we were in this thing called World War II.

The economy didn’t really recover during WW2. Sure people had jobs, but they were building tanks and airplanes, not dishwashers and cars.

By your logic, 9/11 was good for the economy.

I for one won’t say that inspiring people to work for something is a bad thing, even if it involves large scale militarism.

Think about it this way, unemployment drops say 1% because of the number of jobs added for the military industries. Well, that 1% adds that many more middle class jobs, who then have the disposable income to help the next 1% and so on and so forth. Then, when militarism starts to wane a bit if the soldiers aren’t needed, there still exists the manufacturing centers that can be sold off for other businesses to turn a tank factory over to a place to build ATVs or something.

While I’m not going to argue for one side or the other on this one, it is important to note that the strength of the economy can not be measured based on one sole measurement (like unemployment or GDP) in reality you have to look at a multitude of variables.

Hey, do you like games? So do we — that’s what makes Kongregate the best source of free games online. We have thousands upon thousands of free online games, from both one-man indies and large studios, rated and filtered so you can play the best of the best. Read more »